I found a copy of Self Reliance in my sophomore English class 35+ years ago and it changed my life. I'd say since that time, the world's demand for conformity has increased and this book in more important than ever.
I find books, particularly fiction for me, give me a lot of unique ideas and unexpected answer to question I had wondered about in the most unexpected of places. Social media (unless you count UA-cam) has never really given me anything to work with, it's just not a great medium to exchange ideas imo.
“The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. To be your own man is a hard business. If you try it, you’ll be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself.” (Rudyard Kipling in 1935)
"...I love those that know not how to live except as down-goers, for they are the over-goers. I love the great despisers, because they are the great adorers, and arrows of longing for the other shore.... I love him who scatters golden words in advance of his deeds, and always does more than he promises: for he seeks his own down-going.... I love him whose soul is deep even in the wounding, and may succumb through a small matter: thus goes he willingly over the bridge. I love him whose soul is so overfull that he forgets himself, and all things that are in him: thus all things become his down-going.... ....I love him who is of a free spirit and a free heart: thus is his head only the bowels of his heart; his heart, however, causes his down-going...."
Interesting vid. I think there are plenty of original thinkers around, but many don't seek any recognition from social media, so it's the wrong place to look. There is a term I can't remember, something like "founders bias", that describes how those who become involved early in any given field (real estate, business ideas, academia) receive greater levels of success than is realistically possible for those who follow later. I don't think we have a deficit of people who could found a religion or critical movement.. we just don't really have as many unfilled niches. When humanity develops another critical need, then the time is ripe for someone to become the next "genius" that can become revered for generations to come
Perhaps we also could be getting to the point where there can be no more possible unique perspectives, but yeah, we might need another critical need for those perspectives to emerge. What do you think that need might be?
@@PhilosophyToons maybe there are already critical needs everywhere, but before the public start seeking them, there needs to be a critical mass reached, a groundswell of public opinion. So I guess the people that become the figurehead for these movements both pick up on an existing sentiment, and successfully promote it further. In this respect I think a lot of leaders are less inventive, and more enigmatic in their ability to foster these cults of personality
We are not free to change, we are able to adapt, but not equally good at it. Conformity is just adaption to make life easier in a community where you either are with or against them. Nature doesn't change, you adapt and if you survive, you might be different then the people before you. Though with the right communitys you might have a bigger leeway, but even in the countries with the best social help and freedom, there is still suffering (e.g. homelessnes) because people couldn't adapt. You still have to conform to get help, there is very little help without questions asked and strings attached. Sure it isn't as much as in countries with less help, but it is not "you're free to change", you need the ability and support to be different too. And being different is often not a choice, I think alot of people would be happier if they could be not different or have a easier time adapting, things would just be so much easier. A hard life might be romantic or heroic to someone that wants to change the world, but stabilty and change are two sides of the same coin. No side can win, the change has to push us to new frontiers and the stability has to give us savety to recover. It would be horrible if everyone can change the world or if no one would try. No one should have to change the world to be different. And I don't want to, I just want to be left alone, playing in dirt, sowing some seeds. But no I have to watch as everything burns, I'm not a phoenix.
First off, love the vid and the format. You have a subscriber. However I find Emerson (from what I can tell in this vid) to be somewhat annoyingly irresponsible. He wants people to be individualistic, yet against the backdrop of human history there is precendent everywhere for any thought or action. Plus when people grow up they have a greater perspective and perhaps have a level of temperence to what they say or do. Sure, in the society in which somebody lives is going to have a massive effect on how somebody behaves and acts, and by the time they have grown up they would have been moulded in some way. So when a child is the way they are it is because they lack that perspecitve and can be quite shortsighted. Also I find with Emerson is that he has seemingly little regard for truth. I find it difficult to hold to an idea which I've deduced to be wrong, now perhaps the view I hold is based on a more conformed viewpoint but it is still possible to be true. Science has confirmed that the earth is round and I take that view as well, does that make me a conformist, that it does. However to then say that the earth is flat out of sheer non-conformity would be worse. You could argue what is the value of truth, but I think that would be an incredibly difficult line of argument to persue. However I will credit Emerson in that people do need to be authentic to their character, to express their own opinions in the face of precedents such as history and academia. If there are no original viewpoints or ideas, and humanity as a whole uses precedent as a crutch for a position, then we might be unable to adapt to new futures. Lets put it this way, in light of the pandemic the leaders that wanted to protect the economies ultimately failed because they placed capitalism and the economy on an altar and were unable to see another point of view. The great irony being that if they had protected themselves sooner, their economies would be better. Off topic a bit there, but, what can I say, I'm inspired. Great vid man!
Interesting. I think living IN society implies some level of conformity, some level of adhering to other's rules like you said. In a responsible society it should be possible to think out-of-the-box though without suffering dire consequences; to expand or better human existence, even if some rules are to be broken. Unfortunately most societies were and still are corrupted by political ideology, which hinders scientific progress. The situation surely got better since the Enlightenment, but many are still narrow-minded people of the past forcing the crutch of conformity on those who may change the world for the better.
Nonconformity seems to have the same flavor and taste to me as "the hero's journey", "ubermensch" and "individuation". Thank you for your channel. Cheers.
The sad reality is that more often or not we get marginalized for not conforming, so it takes guts :D You writing gets better with every video mate, love it. Keep up the good work!
“The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. To be your own man is a hard business. If you try it, you’ll be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself.” (Rudyard Kipling in 1935)
As I look at the views comments and popularity I notice there aren’t a lot. Most people want to be accepted and in turn the wealthy percentage of people are 1. Keep up the good work.
Could you explain a little more his point about philanthropy in these essays? Is he speaking to the ones who give for the sake of it being “the right thing to do “ or is he saying that every charity should work for its own sustenance?
In this essay he seems to have a negative view on philanthropy based upon the desire to please others. This could be an incorrect interpretation though, but it seems to me at least that philanthropy doesn't jive well with his hardcore individuality.
Hey just found you, love the tone, breaks away from the expended bland seriousness of philosophy. Don't fully agree with the comparison with nature, as nature's flow is actually constricted and defined by what surrounds it. Every single element behaves in a way that relates with what's around it, much like wind's direction being blocked by buildings or certain populations being defined by the climate or type of forests on their area. Switching views, nature viewed as a whole is something quite indefinite and not worth trying to define as flowing or not at all. Too big, too mixed, undefined. Precisely to flow free sometimes you have to force your way wherever you intend to flow, like water bursting a dam or a volcano forcing the summit of a mountain off. I can relate this act of effort to what individuality entails sometimes - one needs to put a moderate effort to think for themselves, moreso dare express their individual opinion to the world. Break the walls of social peer-pressure. That's something I feel missing from the video -or maybe you just didn't intend to include the concept-, while there are great reasons to maintain individuality and integrity of the self, there's a big motivation for us not to do so. To be unique is to be alone. To adhere to a known social norm is to be in company. And we are a social creature, boy are we. The 'dangers' of maintaining an unique personality, view, opinion, or way of being are quite exaggerated by our surroundings, moreso nowadays. Its easy to be convinced to fold. Specially now, as without even having had the oportunity to display our view yet, you have thousands of opinions (and news articles) defining what you should and should not do. What will define you as weird. Or 'special'. Thanks for the video. On top of enjoying it, this kind of content is always a great anchor to dedicate some minutes to put the brain to think about the stuff. That's always healthy.
The imagine of nature makes no sense to me. First, it's human who judge Nature to be beautiful. Second, yeah Nature doesn't care about judgement, but that's because it can't :D
BY THE WAY. Using Jesus and Christianity is really not the way to illustrate your point. Go read real history on the development of Christianity. Jesus had no idea what he was doing. Paul made him into a thing.
![Self-Reliance by Ralph Waldo Emerson [Audiobook] #individualism #freedom #classicliterature](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/F4to8V4j65g/mqdefault.jpg)
![Self-Reliance by Ralph Waldo Emerson [Audiobook] #individualism #freedom #classicliterature](/img/tr.png)
I found a copy of Self Reliance in my sophomore English class 35+ years ago and it changed my life. I'd say since that time, the world's demand for conformity has increased and this book in more important than ever.
I find books, particularly fiction for me, give me a lot of unique ideas and unexpected answer to question I had wondered about in the most unexpected of places. Social media (unless you count UA-cam) has never really given me anything to work with, it's just not a great medium to exchange ideas imo.
Fiction can sometimes convey ideas to a person even better than non fiction. Thanks for watching!
@@PhilosophyToons I like your vids dude, your channel is gonna blow up soon one of these days!
“The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. To be your own man is a hard business. If you try it, you’ll be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself.” (Rudyard Kipling in 1935)
Love this, Ralph waldo emerson was a legend..
Hell yeah. Thanks
"...I love those that know not how to live except as down-goers, for they are the over-goers.
I love the great despisers, because they are the great adorers, and arrows of longing for the other shore....
I love him who scatters golden words in advance of his deeds, and always does more than he promises: for he seeks his own down-going....
I love him whose soul is deep even in the wounding, and may succumb through a small matter: thus goes he willingly over the bridge.
I love him whose soul is so overfull that he forgets himself, and all things that are in him: thus all things become his down-going....
....I love him who is of a free spirit and a free heart: thus is his head only the bowels of his heart; his heart, however, causes his down-going...."
Interesting vid.
I think there are plenty of original thinkers around, but many don't seek any recognition from social media, so it's the wrong place to look.
There is a term I can't remember, something like "founders bias", that describes how those who become involved early in any given field (real estate, business ideas, academia) receive greater levels of success than is realistically possible for those who follow later. I don't think we have a deficit of people who could found a religion or critical movement.. we just don't really have as many unfilled niches. When humanity develops another critical need, then the time is ripe for someone to become the next "genius" that can become revered for generations to come
Perhaps we also could be getting to the point where there can be no more possible unique perspectives, but yeah, we might need another critical need for those perspectives to emerge. What do you think that need might be?
@@PhilosophyToons maybe there are already critical needs everywhere, but before the public start seeking them, there needs to be a critical mass reached, a groundswell of public opinion.
So I guess the people that become the figurehead for these movements both pick up on an existing sentiment, and successfully promote it further. In this respect I think a lot of leaders are less inventive, and more enigmatic in their ability to foster these cults of personality
We are not free to change, we are able to adapt, but not equally good at it. Conformity is just adaption to make life easier in a community where you either are with or against them.
Nature doesn't change, you adapt and if you survive, you might be different then the people before you.
Though with the right communitys you might have a bigger leeway, but even in the countries with the best social help and freedom, there is still suffering (e.g. homelessnes) because people couldn't adapt. You still have to conform to get help, there is very little help without questions asked and strings attached. Sure it isn't as much as in countries with less help, but it is not "you're free to change", you need the ability and support to be different too.
And being different is often not a choice, I think alot of people would be happier if they could be not different or have a easier time adapting, things would just be so much easier.
A hard life might be romantic or heroic to someone that wants to change the world, but stabilty and change are two sides of the same coin. No side can win, the change has to push us to new frontiers and the stability has to give us savety to recover.
It would be horrible if everyone can change the world or if no one would try.
No one should have to change the world to be different.
And I don't want to, I just want to be left alone, playing in dirt, sowing some seeds. But no I have to watch as everything burns, I'm not a phoenix.
First off, love the vid and the format. You have a subscriber.
However I find Emerson (from what I can tell in this vid) to be somewhat annoyingly irresponsible. He wants people to be individualistic, yet against the backdrop of human history there is precendent everywhere for any thought or action. Plus when people grow up they have a greater perspective and perhaps have a level of temperence to what they say or do. Sure, in the society in which somebody lives is going to have a massive effect on how somebody behaves and acts, and by the time they have grown up they would have been moulded in some way. So when a child is the way they are it is because they lack that perspecitve and can be quite shortsighted.
Also I find with Emerson is that he has seemingly little regard for truth. I find it difficult to hold to an idea which I've deduced to be wrong, now perhaps the view I hold is based on a more conformed viewpoint but it is still possible to be true. Science has confirmed that the earth is round and I take that view as well, does that make me a conformist, that it does. However to then say that the earth is flat out of sheer non-conformity would be worse. You could argue what is the value of truth, but I think that would be an incredibly difficult line of argument to persue.
However I will credit Emerson in that people do need to be authentic to their character, to express their own opinions in the face of precedents such as history and academia. If there are no original viewpoints or ideas, and humanity as a whole uses precedent as a crutch for a position, then we might be unable to adapt to new futures. Lets put it this way, in light of the pandemic the leaders that wanted to protect the economies ultimately failed because they placed capitalism and the economy on an altar and were unable to see another point of view. The great irony being that if they had protected themselves sooner, their economies would be better.
Off topic a bit there, but, what can I say, I'm inspired. Great vid man!
Interesting. I think living IN society implies some level of conformity, some level of adhering to other's rules like you said. In a responsible society it should be possible to think out-of-the-box though without suffering dire consequences; to expand or better human existence, even if some rules are to be broken. Unfortunately most societies were and still are corrupted by political ideology, which hinders scientific progress. The situation surely got better since the Enlightenment, but many are still narrow-minded people of the past forcing the crutch of conformity on those who may change the world for the better.
Nonconformity seems to have the same flavor and taste to me as "the hero's journey", "ubermensch" and "individuation". Thank you for your channel. Cheers.
The sad reality is that more often or not we get marginalized for not conforming, so it takes guts :D
You writing gets better with every video mate, love it. Keep up the good work!
Thanks friend!
“The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. To be your own man is a hard business. If you try it, you’ll be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself.” (Rudyard Kipling in 1935)
As I look at the views comments and popularity I notice there aren’t a lot. Most people want to be accepted and in turn the wealthy percentage of people are 1. Keep up the good work.
Emerson is so great! Thank you for making this video and Channel.
Never thought my sense of humor would allow me to learn and laugh at the same time. Appreciate your content !
Could you explain a little more his point about philanthropy in these essays? Is he speaking to the ones who give for the sake of it being “the right thing to do “ or is he saying that every charity should work for its own sustenance?
In this essay he seems to have a negative view on philanthropy based upon the desire to please others. This could be an incorrect interpretation though, but it seems to me at least that philanthropy doesn't jive well with his hardcore individuality.
Hey just found you, love the tone, breaks away from the expended bland seriousness of philosophy.
Don't fully agree with the comparison with nature, as nature's flow is actually constricted and defined by what surrounds it. Every single element behaves in a way that relates with what's around it, much like wind's direction being blocked by buildings or certain populations being defined by the climate or type of forests on their area. Switching views, nature viewed as a whole is something quite indefinite and not worth trying to define as flowing or not at all. Too big, too mixed, undefined.
Precisely to flow free sometimes you have to force your way wherever you intend to flow, like water bursting a dam or a volcano forcing the summit of a mountain off. I can relate this act of effort to what individuality entails sometimes - one needs to put a moderate effort to think for themselves, moreso dare express their individual opinion to the world. Break the walls of social peer-pressure.
That's something I feel missing from the video -or maybe you just didn't intend to include the concept-, while there are great reasons to maintain individuality and integrity of the self, there's a big motivation for us not to do so. To be unique is to be alone. To adhere to a known social norm is to be in company. And we are a social creature, boy are we.
The 'dangers' of maintaining an unique personality, view, opinion, or way of being are quite exaggerated by our surroundings, moreso nowadays. Its easy to be convinced to fold. Specially now, as without even having had the oportunity to display our view yet, you have thousands of opinions (and news articles) defining what you should and should not do. What will define you as weird. Or 'special'.
Thanks for the video. On top of enjoying it, this kind of content is always a great anchor to dedicate some minutes to put the brain to think about the stuff. That's always healthy.
Ooh that's a really good point about nature, thanks for your insight!
Thanks, great video!
appreciate it!
Thanks!
Excellent thank you 👌
Emerson was so based
The best bell I rang
Can't wait for your channel to blow up
Thanks Jessica!
Loved this! You're content is amazing. Keep it up :D
Very reminiscent of Nietzsche. No wonder he admired Emerson!
Thanks friend!
thank you so much for this video 😊
What is the final song that plays in the video?
Dunno but it sounds like something from the 1920s or '30s.
❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️
Good video!👍
happy to see your channel grow my dude!
Thanks yo, appreciate it!
What are your thoughts of... "belief is the enemy of knowing"?
🖤
Wenr to watch from reddit. Noice.
Howdy pardner
Sounds to me like Emerson was a fan of Diogenes the Dog.
The imagine of nature makes no sense to me. First, it's human who judge Nature to be beautiful. Second, yeah Nature doesn't care about judgement, but that's because it can't :D
Very true, perhaps one can't judge nature because to judge would be to import a human element into the equation.
BY THE WAY. Using Jesus and Christianity is really not the way to illustrate your point. Go read real history on the development of Christianity. Jesus had no idea what he was doing. Paul made him into a thing.
i'm being forced under my will to watch this. send help
it's for a class.